Tim Scott

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I will just simply say that if you are looking for a bipartisan approach to legislation, if you are looking for someone who wants to work with the White House, 90 percent of our offsets have been agreed to by the President. And I will simply say that when the President is right--and I don't agree with him very often--he is right. The President said that Congress should not go home for vacation until it finds a way to avoid hitting 160 million Americans with a tax hike on January 1. It would be inexcusable for Congress not to extend this tax holiday for an entire year. I think a bipartisan approach has been taken. I am assured by that fact because the President and I are on the same page, and that doesn't happen but once every year. It must be Christmas. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Jeb Hensarling.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm not quite sure if I heard the gentlelady from New York correctly, but she seemed to allude, or to suggest, that the President might not pass the omnibus bill because of this bill, which sounds like a reaffirmation of the fact that they are playing politics on the left while we on the right consistently look for ways to help the middle class. In addition, when Republican Senator Jim DeMint and President Obama and Speaker Boehner and Democrat Senator Manchin are on the same page on the 1-year extension, we ought to act as a sounding board for those four, who are typically in opposite corners. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Georgia, Dr. Rob Woodall.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself as much time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 502 provides for a motion to go to conference on H.R. 3630 and for a closed ruled on H. Res. 501. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. To be honest, Mr. Speaker, being here today is almost ridiculous because last week the House passed a very good bill, and the three major components of it are very simple: Payroll tax extension, a holiday--not a 60-day holiday, but a 1-year payroll tax extension that is paid for; Unemployment insurance; we addressed unemployment insurance in a very compassionate way, working as the President has suggested. We need to cut it by 20 weeks over time. So our House, in a bipartisan fashion, is working to take it from 99 weeks to 59 weeks, holding in truth the spirit of our President; Finally, the doc fix. If we're going to keep Medicare and the recipients of Medicare whole, we have to address the reimbursement rates of the doctors. This doc fix stops an almost 30 percent cut in the reimbursement rate. But beyond that, we decided that it is time to create American jobs. So the Keystone pipeline that creates more than 20,000 jobs is in this bill. But not only do we want to create jobs, we want to save jobs, and so you think of the Boiler MACT that saves more jobs than the pipeline creates. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our friends on the left want to continue to hold the middle class hostage because they have a plan to continue to raise taxes as they have over the last year. As a matter of fact, in 2010, in one bill only, Mr. Speaker, they raised taxes on the middle class, and this year, because we're moving into an election year, they decided it's time to remember the American middle class. Last year, they were taxing that middle class and taxing that middle class and taxing that middle class. Let me give you a few examples: A new $123 billion of taxes on the middle class in investment income; a hike in Medicare payroll taxes with $86 billion passed through to the middle class. I don't know why this year all of a sudden they want to talk about tax breaks for the middle class and only give them 60 days, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the middle class deserves certainty, and our bill gives them certainty. We say for 1 year we need to extend to the middle class, people who are struggling every day to make their ends meet. Our friends on the left are getting ready for campaign season, so what they're really concerned about is themselves. But what we've said is, when you take into consideration that a person who needs a medical device must now pay a pass-through tax upwards of $20 billion, that's not compassionate. That's not fair, Mr. Speaker. When you think about tanning services, a $2.7 billion pass-through tax to the middle class on tanning services. Now, I'm not quite sure what tanning services has to do with health care, but we find ourselves in the midst, sir, of another backdoor tax increase on the middle class. Or if we need drugs in the future, let's go ahead and tax the innovating companies $22 billion and pass it to the middle class. Or if you don't like those taxes, we've got another one on health insurers. Let's take $60 billion out of the pockets of the middle class by making the insurers pay more, which they know they will pass it through to the middle class. But since that may not be enough, they decided that they would actually tax the health plans of the middle class, $32 billion on the plans of the middle class. I just don't understand it, Mr. Speaker. We must not only extend this tax cut for the middle class; we must also pay for it. As I was talking to one of my constituents, a 57-year-old who makes $650 every 2 weeks, every 2 weeks she brings home $650, and she needs her $600 tax cut. But she's very close to Social Security so she says to me: Tim, please, as you provide an extension of the tax cut, please don't raid the Social Security funds. So we on the right have decided, in a bipartisan way, to work with the President. Our offsets include 90 percent offsets that the President, himself, has agreed to. In a bipartisan way, we address the payroll tax extension. We keep Social Security as solvent as it can be today, and we continue to make sure that senior citizens have doctors who will see them because we fixed the problem of reimbursement rates. And unemployment is now a greater incentive for work than it has been in more than 2 years or so because we're taking 99 weeks and we're working in a bipartisan fashion with the President and taking it down to 59 weeks for some States. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I enjoy listening to my friends on the left talk about how they need to get on our side and stop the tax increases. But the funny problem is that the American people may like what they say, but they don't like what they do. I would only suggest and ask people to check the voting record on the tax increases. I would also say that our bill, our payroll tax extension bill, reduces the deficit, the debt by $953 million, a $953 million reduction. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Sheriff Nugent.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 4 of rule XVI, I move that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record the following email from Mr. Lafe Solomon, acting chief counsel of the NLRB. The article gave me a new idea. You go to geneva and I get a job with airbus. We screwed up the us economy and now we can tackle europe. Mr. Speaker, I would say that there's no question that the NLRB is not under attack. Employees' freedom is under attack. The workplace fairness concept is under attack, but certainly not the NLRB. There's no question that the NLRB was thought to be an impartial referee for our employers and our employees, but that has not been the case. They have been anything other than impartial. And their email trail will show that in just a few seconds. But despite the fact that today we have 2 million more unemployed Americans, the NLRB continues to choose sides in the disputes, as opposed to being a referee. Their lack of judgment and common sense has been magnified, and it can be seen clearly in the email conversations within the Department of the NLRB. Mr. Solomon apparently thought the following was funny, despite his current efforts which threatens more than 1,000 jobs in the great State of South Carolina and in my district in North Charleston. Emailing a colleague regarding criticism from a magazine article, this is what he said. I want you to hear this clearly. I'm going to say it slowly because we need to understand and appreciate that the NLRB has lost their marbles, without any question. His quote: ``The article gave me a new idea. You go to Geneva and I get a job with Airbus,'' Mr. Solomon said. ``We screwed up the U.S. economy, and now we can tackle Europe.'' Let me repeat that because this is the chief counsel at the NLRB stating very clearly his intentions and his lack of humor. ``The article gave me a new idea,'' saying to one of his colleagues. ``You go to Geneva. I'll get a job with Airbus. We screwed up the U.S. economy and now we can tackle Europe.'' Only in an alternate universe is this funny or does it make any sense whatsoever. It is no secret that the NLRB's reckless actions have a direct impact on my district, without any question. But it is also no secret many on both sides of the aisle have recognized the danger of those actions. Earlier this year the House passed my bill, H.R. 2587, which removes the ability from the NLRB to destroy jobs because, simply put, they cannot be trusted to do anything other than undermine the fragile recovery here in America. Unfortunately, Senator Reid has done with my bill what he has done with the other 22 job-creating measures: nothing.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. The new rule also makes it impossible for anyone to challenge the bargaining unit chosen by the union, dividing employees and raising employers' labor costs. We stand here today with an opportunity. We can either allow the NLRB to continue to create bad policy and bad rules, or we can put America and the job creators back on the right track. The question could not be simpler, and the choice has been made easy because of the inability of the NLRB to do what they were chosen to do, which was to be the impartial referee on issues between employers and employees, and I find that challenging.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. In an effort to appease the President and his union supporters, the NLRB has gone off the tracks and begun proposing harmful rules, left, right, up, down. It is ridiculous. One of these rules is why we're here today, an effort to allow for quickie union elections. This rule, quite simply, puts the rights of all employees at risk. By allowing as little as 7 to 10 days for employees to decide whether they want to join a union or not, the NLRB is preventing many from having the time to do the necessary research and make a good decision on whether or not they join a union. Currently, the average time is 35 to 40 days, a reasonable amount of time. This is a significant difference. Going from 35 to 40 days down to 7 to 10 days is ridiculous.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Let me first thank Sheriff Nugent from Florida. Sheriff, you're doing a fantastic job with this rule, and I thank you for leading this important debate. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a simple question of my friends who oppose the whole concept of a balanced budget amendment: What makes us, the Federal Government, any different than the State and local governments who have to abide under a simple balanced budget concept? But more importantly, what makes us any different than the 74 percent of Americans in a CNN poll who simply say a balanced budget amendment is in the best interests of the citizens of this country? Simply put, Washington needs to stop this runaway train of spending. So often, too often even, it seems that this town has lost sight of the fact that taxpayer dollars don't just appear from some magical piggy bank but rather are paid by hardworking American families. We have a duty to spend these dollars wisely. And, unfortunately, in this town that simply doesn't happen very often at all. The last 3 years, not the last 30 years, not the last three decades, but the last 3 years we have seen the largest increase in the debt of this Nation, in the history of this Nation, and it is very clear that a constitutional amendment is the strongest option we have today to ensure that this doesn't happen again. How can we expect to create a proper environment for job creation when we can't even keep the Federal Government's checkbook in balance? How does the current administration think we can continue to force small businesses to completely revamp their budgets under an onslaught of burdensome regulations while Washington does not have to do the same thing?

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. It simply doesn't make sense. We should get this work done. We should get this fixed today. I will say as part of the majority-making class of 2010, with 86 out of the 87 freshmen on the Republican side supporting some form of the balanced budget amendment, we should move forward now. The American people demand it, and they should get it.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dennis Ross.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. We have one more speaker.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I would just encourage my friends on the left who want to raise taxes, raise taxes if you can, but the bottom line is that raising revenues does not make you more responsible, does not make you use the revenues that you currently have more responsibly. So the notion of raising taxes to use that as a fix to this situation is inconsistent with the reality and is part of the alternate universe that we ought not be a part of. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Donald Manzullo.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Randy Hultgren.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is so important for us to recognize is the importance of living within our means and allowing our ability to control our spending to dictate what we are able to use, as opposed to having more tax increases as a way to fund the resource priorities of this Nation. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. James Lankford.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Mike Fitzpatrick.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.